FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HAMMOND LANE, ATHLONE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Conditions of Employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns ten workers employed by the Company in Athlone, Co.Westmeath. The Union claims are detailed as follows;
(a)Relocation payment. In 2004 the Company moved from the Batteries area of Athlone to Garrycastle at the other side of the town. The Company offered €700 per worker in disturbance compensation. The Union rejected the offer.
(b)Allowance.In April, 2004 the Union became aware of an overscale allowance of €6.35 which was being paid to workers in the Dublin Depot. The Union is seeking an effective date for payment of the allowance of 1st January, 2005.
(c)Mutual Aid Scheme. The Mutual Aid Scheme has been in operation since the 1960's. The Union claims that workers in the Athlone branch only became aware of this in 2004 and now seeks appropriate compensation for the years past.
The Company's final offer of a composite payment was €900 per worker and agreement to pay the allowance from the 1st January, 2005. It was rejected by the Union following a ballot of the workforce. The Union is seeking a lump sum payment of €3,000 per worker in compensation to resolve the three issues. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd April, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Mullingar on the 8th September, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Relocation payment.In a recent survey of Labour Court recommendations for the years 2002-2005 the average relocation settlement was approximately €500 per mile. The Union recently concluded a deal with a local firm which provided for a net sum €2,000 net per worker for a move of 1.5 miles. The claimants are relocating a distance of approximately three miles.
2.Allowance.There has always been a parity position between Dublin and Athlone. The allowance in Dublin dates back to the 1990.s.The offer of an effective date of 1st January, 2005 would be acceptable in the context of a €3,000 per worker overall settlement.
3.Mutual Aid Scheme.Since the 1960's the scheme has been in operation. Despite the fact that the claimants in Athlone contribute to the scheme the Company did not inform them about the full benefits of the scheme until April, 2004.
4. The Union's claim of €3,000 is modest in the context of the three claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Relocation payment. The relocation to the new site involves minimum disturbance. Some employees now work at a location more convenient to their home. The new site provides for superior work conditions to those of the old site.
2.Allowance.While not strictly appropriate to Athlone, the Company has agreed to apply the €6.35 allowance with substantial retrospection.
3.Mutual Aid Scheme. The Company provided details of the benefits to members under the scheme as requested by the Union in April, 2004. The Company rejected the Union's proposed notional calculation to resolve this issue as unwarranted and unjustified.
4. The Company feels that its offer of an amalgamated lump sum payment of €900 to resolve the disturbance money and Mutual Aid issues and the application of the €6.35 allowance from 1st January, 2005 is fair and reasonable. .
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court believes that the dispute should be resolved by the payment of a composite lump sum. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company offer and that the Union accepts a lump sum of €1,500 per affected worker in full and final settlement of all the claims forming part of this referral.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th September, 2005______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.